If banks are turning down Federal aid, that's good news for them and good news for us.
It's not like the government just decided to give a lot of money to the banks and held a gun to their heads. |
|
Isn't this (having a lot of banks that don't need Federal dollars return it) ultimately a good thing?
And isn't this (placing a lot of regulations and interference on businesses that do take the money) an effective way of preventing the moral hazards of coming to the Feds when you screw up your company? Only the truly desperate will be willing to endure it.
|
|
|
Hey, Geithner, now that you're getting the money back, why don't you bail out my 401k? You know, the one you and Barney Frank and Baracula trashed? |
|
"The way TCF Chief Executive Bill Cooper views it"
Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the regulations now limit Chief Executive salaries, could it? I wonder what the average TCF bank teller or TCF accountant thinks about it. |
|
|
I would not be a tiny bit surprised! |
|
1:44 "It's not like the government just decided to give a lot of money to the banks and held a gun to their heads."
Wanna bet? I may not been a real gun, but dam* close. |
|
|
For 8 of the nine largest banks that were called in and forced to take the TARP money, it wasn't a gun, it was regulatory oversight. You don't take the money, you go out of business. That's more powerful than a gun. |
|
Won't let the states do anything but take ALL the money. I am surprised he would ALLOW the banks to return the funds.
How unpatriotic of those banks!
|
|
"Its ok with me if govt spends a few hundred billion in order to limit the salaries of the banks' executive officers. Yes sir. Makes sense to me. Now why doesn't my checkbook balance again?"
|
|
"For 8 of the nine largest banks that were called in and forced to take the TARP money, it wasn't a gun, it was regulatory oversight. You don't take the money, you go out of business."
Do you READ this stuff before you hit the "Post" button? Do you just cut and paste it?
Are you honestly trying to say that the government forced banks to take money? Due to "regulatory oversight"???? I suppose you're right about one thing: if they don't take the money, they're out of business. But not because of anything the government would do. |
|
Believe it or not - some of the banks did decline the money---there's been much reporting on this
From the WSJ:\
During the discussion, the most animated response came from Wells Fargo (WFC) Chairman Richard Kovacevich, say people present. Why was this necessary? he asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks?
Morgan Stanley (MS) Chief Executive John Mack, whose company was among the most vulnerable in the group to the swirling financial crisis, quickly signed.
Bank of America's (BAC) Kenneth Lewis acknowledged the obvious, that everyone at the table would participate. "Any one of us who doesn't have a healthy fear of the unknown isn't paying attention," he said.
It continues:
Mr. Paulson said the public had lost confidence in the banking system. "The system needs more money, and all of you will be better off if there's more capital in the system," Mr. Paulson told the bankers.
After Mr. Kovacevich voiced his concerns, Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion. If the company found it needed capital later and Mr. Kovacevich couldn't raise money privately, Mr. Paulson promised the government wouldn't be so generous the second time around. |
|
"Mr. Paulson described the deal starkly. He told the Wells Fargo chairman he could accept the government's money or risk going without the infusion."
So he told them they could take the money or not take the money. Where's the coercion? |
|
READ LIARS POKER for an education on the madness of the last 2 decades. These men and women belong in JAIL>
As do all the Democrats and the 17 Republicans who took their campaign contributions in return for the legal protection of their otherwise criminal behavior. |
|
those loans were available to people with money? It is because the government forced banks to make those loans to poor, unqualified people first. Then the banks, not being stupid, realized that they could cover most of those loans that they knew would default by making the same type of loans to people with the ability to pay for them (at least for awhile while housing prices were rising). If it weren't for government meddling, CRA and Mark-to-Market rules, those loans would not exist.
Try obtaining facts before you make a fool of yourself again. |
|
|
just one good thing about this thug, anti-American, radical-muslim, commie thief we have in the White House. Barack Hussein Obama is a cancer to ALL Americans. Right now as we speak, he's attacking YOUR rights, freedoms and liberties. Yes, you! Are you good soldiers gonna fight for this man while he's attacking your country and your families' rights and values?! Lord, I hope not. |
|
|
Please tell me how you think master Obama is supposed to "fix" the economy, when he is working tirelessly to destroy it? Obviously. |
|
"It is because the government forced banks to make those loans to poor"
You fool, these banks would fall over themselves giving a loan to anyone who could fog up a mirror. They had the profit motive, silly.
How do you explain AIG losing $99 billion last year? Wah...the government made them..... |
|
|
In 1998, our government passed the "Community ReInvestment Act" that FORCED, yes FORCED, private lenders and private banks to make bad loans, against their will. "Google" it and share it with friends. |
|
Following is the paragraph that comes directly after the paragraph that Ms. Bachman quoted from Warren Buffet's annual letter:
Whatever the downsides may be, strong and immediate action by government was essential last year if the financial system was to avoid a total breakdown. Had that occurred the consequences for every area of our economy would have been cataclysmic. Like it or not, the inhabitants of Wall Street, Main Street and the various Side Streets of America were all in the same boat.
Gee, Ms. Bachman, nothing like cherry picking to support your lack luster thesis. I would have more respect for you if you would present a well-reasoned cogent argument.
This is one reason that I am seriously considering leaving the Republican party; the reckless disregard for honesty and the total lack of intellectual integrity.
|
|
|
in 2 years, the American people are, once again, gonna rush to the polls and vote-in Republicans. Facts overwhelmingly show that Democrats and Republicans both have done so much damage to our country that it is almost unrepairable. I truly don't know how anyone can sit here on this Townhall site and post support fo either political party. What a disgrace. Vote LIBERTARIAN! And at least give someone else a chance to screw us. It's better than continuing to be raped by the Democrats and Republicans. I've never voted Democrat. I've always voted Republican and Libertarian. I'll never vote for Republicans again. Democrats are not an option. |
|
"In 1998, our government passed the "Community ReInvestment Act"
1977 |
|
|
The overstated need for bankers bailout is proving to be exposed as afraud by the banks. President Obama arrogance is causing problems in the United States Congress as the possible opponents start to consider their run for federal office. The refusal of the Tarp funding with all the attachments of the Obama administration is proving to hurt congressional democrats. Most all political donors have their money in some type of bank accounts. |
|
My take is that the economic contraction is due to not just a housing bubble. It was an "Easy Credit" bubble. No verification of income/debts for mortgages, car loans, credit cards.
It is natural, normal, and completely expected that the economy would contract after bouncing off the debt ceiling capacity. No amount of govt spending will do anything but keep the bubble inflated until it lands on the next administration.
Obama is wholly a part of the "Me" generation. Making himself look good by shoving our problems off on the next guy/gal to take his office. Intentionally increasing the burden on the future wealth of Americans for his own political gain.
I'll be surprised if there is no tax revolt or even (I hate to think of it) an assassination (attemp). To be frank, I think a white male communist would have been 6 feet under by now.
Obama may have the best of intentions, but his intentions are wrong for us and he knows full well he must be deceptive to the American people in order to acheive his goals.
A real patriot; Washington, Jefferson, Madison - would have offed this guy themselves. |
|
"Wells Fargo (WFC) Chairman Richard Kovacevich, say people present. Why was this necessary? he asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks?"
Notice that he's not turning the money down, he's questioning the strings that are attached.
I think the Tea Party organizers should start organizing retired Republicans and tell them to return their Social Security checks. That'll show the commies! |
|
"Making himself look good by shoving our problems off on the next guy/gal to take his office."
And Reagan, he tripled the existing national debt. Read what the person he appointed to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve said about Reagan in his book.
n page 102, of the aforementioned book, we have the following tidbit of Greenspan's thoughts at the end of 1988.
"The economic indicators, meanwhile, were far from encouraging. Huge government deficits under Reagan had caused the national debt to the public to almost triple, from just under $700 billion at the start of his presidency to more than $2 trillion at the end of fiscal year 1988. The dollar was falling, and people were worried about America losing its competitive edge."
|
|
"In 1998, our government passed the 'Community ReInvestment Act' that FORCED, yes FORCED,"
You buffoon, do you realize that Newt Gringrich was Speaker of the House then. You'd better update your Republican talking points memo, pronto! |
|
I'm glad that some banks are refusing to take money from the government. However, they won't get away with it. The governments WANTS to take over the banks. It's the quickest way for them to take over the economy and therefore the people. Congress and President Hussein say that nationalizing the banks is only going to be temporary. But once those bast***s gain power over someone or something they do not relinquish it. It will be permanent Sooner or later they will force every bank to accept TARP money. If they don't, I'm sure the government will find some banking regulation that they are violating.
Heil, Obama!! |
|
|
For liberal fascists that's what it's all about. A lot of conservatives have been saying this fact for a while now, that when you get individuals or entities on the gov teet, it'll be hard to kick them off. (Way to catch up with the rest of us Warren) Liberal politicians are all to eager to help people get on the dole but their reasoning is suspect. They just want the control, they need the sheep to operate at their perceived capacity. |
|
|
The banks should turn down the money and start working on their own to solve the problem. Besides excessive government control makes no sense. We cant restrict their ability to do buisness. Arent we shareholders now????? Dont tell them they cant show clients a good time at a posh resort. Because they may lose buisness to a bank that didnt take TARP money that can give their customers that better treatment. |
|
|
Seems that Neil Cavuto had this pegged. As did I, but I'm a nobody. :P |
|
The Community Reinvestment Act and Program (I added the Program so that it had initials that met its purpose) was 1977. Go read that liberal rag, the New York Times (you know that one, right Zap)
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399banks-c ongress.html
and guess who was instrumental in pushing it, Zap? Read the article and note that Lawrence Summers was one of the main perpetrators. The Congressional Republicans got remodeled bank supervision regulations which unfortunately did not apply to Fannie and Freddie.
So, guess what, Zap? He is more right than the scorn deserves. If you can't be positive, listen to your liberal friends and "STFU". |
|
|
Michelle, you're a great American, and even though I am not living in your state, I still salute you, I admire your tenacity. I heard recently that our own High Point Bank also Opted out, only they even refused to take possession so it wasn't a matter of sending it back, so I hear. What a great blog you have too! Do you know that I get my news from blogs such as these and from Thomas over the MSM. Without these, and only MSM we would be like mushrooms. Also, I wanted to tell you that, for what it's worth, you have my support for your amendment to the Constitution. Sad to say such things have to be spelled out, but without it, the socialists will take the ball and run with it. Now to make our currency truly American, we need to outlaw the Fed. Enough is enough. |
|
Vladimir wrote:
"It's not like the government just decided to give a lot of money to the banks and held a gun to their heads. "
We were not present in those sessions, but the truth about what went on is sure to be revealed and I think that "putting a gun to their heads" would be putting it nicely. We're talking about socialists here, and they do not behave nicely whilst twisting arms. It's not about "Saving the finacial industry"; it is all about securing power and having the say-so to advance their agenda. It's about seizing the advantage once the "crisis" they created has matured. Bravery in the onslaught is one thing, but rest assured, socialists job one is to crush independent spirit. This is what they do where ever socialism has been tried. |
|
This is the same creature who thinks only parts of America are "American" and is trying to rally the NRA/McVeighhs to wage war against...who exactly?
"Are you good soldiers gonna fight for this man while he's attacking your country and your families' rights and values?! Lord, I hope not."
I rest my case. |
|
|
It appears that those banks are continuing to rely on FDIC to insure their deposits, so they aren't really opting out of the system, just a tiny bit of it. |
|
|
...are not the ones who need guns to their heads.... |
|
|
After another week with Americans being gunned down -- four officers; seven elderly; one nurse; and today, a family of six -- and Paddy cracks wise about killing people with a gun. What is wrong with some of you? |
|
....lying liberal half-wit. Show me EXACTLY where I said that.
What's wrong with ALL of you....?
|
|
"After another week with Americans being gunned down"
That one really hit home to us. Until last year, my mother-in-law was in a retirement home just ten miles down the road in Pinehurst. |
|
I bet if more people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, we'd see a big drop in crimes like these.
Don't you live in Chicago? Big on gun control there. Got LOTS of crime. More gun control = more crime. |
|
Your party's weird slavery to gun ownership is turning this nation into a weekly bloodbath. Not to mention Mexican drug cartels getting their arms from patriots here in the USA...
Please tell me how four armed officers and seven elderly folks in wheelchairs could stop their killer?
And those three kids shot today here - guns for them?
Oh, the answer is GUNS IN CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS!
Do you see how ridiculous this is? |
|
Gun ownership doesn't cause crime. Criminals cause crime.
Dam* straight, give guns to all the people who pass a gun safety course, a background check and a stringent written exam.
Think about Chicago.
Does Chicago have gun control? YES
Does New York have gun control? YES
Are they cities with a lot of shootings? YES
Who is doing the shootings? CRIMINALS
Who is getting shot? Mostly, it's innocent people or its other criminals.
WHY do I not get the option to defend myself with a firearm, while Mayor Daley and his tax collectors can be armed or surrounded with security details? Why is that fair? |
|
I don't want to have to wait on the cops if someone is coming after my family in my home. I'll retreat or barricade as much as possible, but I want that backup option in case the bad guys are after more than just "stuff".
I really resent liberals who want to take away my option to defend myself with a firearm.
I thought you guys were pro-choice!
Is that only when it comes to abortion? |
|
I am one of millions and millions of law abiding gun owners who didn't shoot anybody today.
It's true it's tragic that madmen have used guns to commit heinous acts, but the ones who used cars or knives to commit their heinous acts never seem to make the news, and the cops had a lot better chance of defending themselves WITH guns than without.
I would also point out that if it weren't for American citizens with guns, you would be answering to Queen Elizabeth right now....and speaking English with a funny accent.
Wise up... |
|
"I would also point out that if it weren't for American citizens with guns, you would be answering to Queen Elizabeth right now."
I'd be perfectly happy to give adult non-criminal Americans completely unfettered access to Revolutionary War-era guns. You can have all the flintlocks, muskets, and muzzle-loaders you want. After all, that's what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment. |
|
IT IS ABOUT TIME::::: that responsible institutions like
TCF
Northern Trust
Iberia
Wells FARGO
US BANKS
etc.
GIVE OBAMA THE FINGER ::: AND HONOR SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS TO their institutions, who runs them and how much they are paid.
THERE IS A RAY OF HOPE ! |
|
If you really think your rec room packed with pistols and assault rifles can stop the militaristic government that you helped build up...it didn't work for David Koresh.
Your arguments are backwards; more guns doesn't equal more safety. It equals more death. And just wait until one of the wackos here breaks out their weapons to shoot the tax-man in protest... |
|